Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Television

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Also feel free to have a merge discussion on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Television

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has multiple issues and no sources, and this has been true for years. Rebecca Television is not a TV station, but appears to be one guy's blog. It is not an entity that appears to have any more reason for notability than hundreds of thousands of blogs. I came upon it because it was being used as a source for defamatory content re Mazher Mahmood, and I could find no basis to judge Rebecca Television to be a reliable source. If it is a TV company, then we would expect to see its programs, where they were broadcast etc. In any event, the unresolved multiple issues since 2010 should also deal with it. Bluehotel (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge the article into Freemasonry#Political criticism. The blog is notable because it revealed connections between Freemasonry and child abuse; however, it isn't enough to keep. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 17:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.